10 countries that still tax wealth: rates, rules, and who pays

Wealth tax is among the most hotly debated tools in tax policy: people talk about it a lot, but in practice it’s relatively rare. Of the 38 OECD member countries, only four currently apply a full-fledged wealth tax: Norway, Spain, Switzerland, and Colombia. Elsewhere you mostly see “targeted” versions—taxing specific asset types rather than taxing total net wealth in one comprehensive system.

If you’re considering a relocation, buying a second home, or participating in Citizenship by Investment (CBI) programs, you should check wealth tax rules early. Unlike income tax—which focuses on how much you earn—wealth tax is based on what capital you hold. That makes these regimes especially sensitive for high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs), whose wealth is concentrated in assets rather than in regular income.

Below is an overview of how wealth taxes work in each country, what rates apply, and how this translates into real-world calculations.

Norway: in place since the 19th century and still among the clearest

Norway’s personal wealth taxation system has been operating since 1892, making it one of the longest-running regimes in the world. The mechanics are comparatively straightforward.

The tax is triggered when net wealth exceeds 1.9 million Norwegian kroner (about $197,000). The base rate is 1%, split into two parts: 0.35% goes to the municipality and 0.65% to the central government.

When net wealth rises above 21.5 million kroner (roughly $2.2 million), the government portion increases to 0.75%, bringing the combined burden up to about 1.1%.

The tax base covers worldwide assets of tax residents, including real estate held abroad. Even if double tax treaties exist, they do not remove the resident obligation to declare foreign assets as part of the tax base.

The final amount is strongly influenced by valuation discounts. The primary residence is valued with a reduction: 25% of market value for the portion up to NOK 10 million and 70% for amounts above that. Publicly traded shares are valued at 80%, while foreign residential real estate and “cottage” properties are valued at 30% of confirmed market value.

So even with a nominal 1% rate, the effective burden is often lower due to valuation rules. Still, public debate around Norway’s wealth tax continues—especially after the 2022 rate review.

For 2023, Norway collected about NOK 32 billion (approximately $3.3 billion), based on a population of roughly 655,000 taxpayers.

Spain: two parallel layers instead of one

Spain is often viewed as one of Europe’s more challenging jurisdictions for wealth taxation. Here, two independent taxes operate side by side.

1) Regional wealth tax on net assets (Impuesto sobre el Patrimonio).

2) A national “solidarity” surcharge introduced in 2022 (Impuesto Temporal de Solidaridad de las Grandes Fortunas).

The regional tax is progressive: rates typically fall in the 0.16%–3.5% range for net assets above €700,000 (in some regions the figures may be lower). Residents pay on worldwide assets, while non-residents pay only on assets located in Spain.

A key feature is that autonomous communities can significantly reduce the regional burden—or in practice even eliminate it. Historically, such practices have been seen, including in Madrid and other areas. The “solidarity” tax was designed specifically to address this asymmetry.

The national layer applies when net assets exceed €3 million, with rates from 1.7% to 3.5%. In December 2023, the Constitutional Court confirmed the tax’s legality, and authorities continued it.

For taxpayers, this means that even if you live in a region with a lower regional burden, large fortunes can trigger the national “top-up.” In 2023, Spain raised about €3.1 billion through wealth taxes—roughly 0.6% of total tax revenues.

For investors evaluating Spain’s “golden visa” model (now limited to investments not in real estate), the tax setup becomes an important part of the calculation. Particular attention is needed for residency nuances and how regional and national rules interact—these cases typically require professional support.

Participants in the “Beckham Law” regime may also benefit from substantial relief: foreign assets can be excluded from the wealth tax base, while the logic of exemptions under the solidarity tax depends on the program’s conditions and the taxpayer’s status.

Switzerland: a wealth tax levied at cantonal and municipal level

Switzerland’s wealth tax is unusual: it is collected at the cantonal and municipal levels, and there is no federal wealth tax.

At the same time, exemption thresholds are not as high as some people assume. In practice, the tax can affect not only the ultra-wealthy but also the upper end of the “affluent middle class.”

For example, in Zurich the charge typically starts around CHF 80,000 for single taxpayers (a starting rate of about 0.05%) and increases progressively to around 0.3% for wealth above CHF 3.3 million. In Geneva, the threshold is roughly CHF 83,000, and the top rate can approach 1%.

The tax is calculated on worldwide assets of Swiss residents, subject to exclusions (including, in particular, foreign real estate and certain categories of foreign permanent establishments). Non-residents pay only for assets located in Switzerland.

Rates and thresholds vary by canton—and even by municipality. As a result, an internal “competition” emerges for high-income and high-wealth residents. Cantons such as Zug, Schwyz, and Nidwalden are traditionally considered places with more moderate rates.

Another mechanism worth noting is forfaitaire: it may apply to certain foreign nationals who do not work in the country, potentially lowering the effective burden through a special way of calculating the tax base.

Despite comparatively moderate rates, the broad base generates meaningful revenue: in 2023, Switzerland collected about €9.5 billion from personal wealth tax—around 4.3% of all tax receipts (one of the highest shares among OECD countries).

Colombia: strengthening from 2026

In Colombia, wealth taxation changed significantly toward the end of 2025. After parliament rejected a proposed tax reform, the government declared an economic emergency and approved Legislative Decree 1474, effective from January 1, 2026.

The decree reduced the taxable threshold from 72,000 UVT to 40,000 UVT (roughly $530,000 at current exchange rates).

As a result, the group of taxpayers expands: authorities estimate that about 102,000 people will fall within the tax net (instead of a narrower group under the previous rules).

The rates are progressive, ranging from 0.5% to a maximum 5% for net assets above 2 million UVT (about $28 million). A 5% top rate is considered one of the highest among major economies.

Residents are taxed on worldwide assets, while non-residents are taxed only on property located in Colombia. This matters for Colombians who keep investments in the country while living abroad.

The decree’s legal stability is not yet fully settled. Because it was introduced under emergency powers, it could be challenged for constitutional compliance. If a court finds the rule unconstitutional, the prior parameters would likely return (threshold of 72,000 UVT and rates roughly 0.5%–1.5%).

Overall, Colombia’s “pulsing” wealth tax policy increases planning risk: measures have been introduced temporarily during COVID-19, later expired, then returned—and now have been strengthened via an executive act.

Argentina: wealth tax gradually reduced under Milei

Argentina applies Impuesto sobre los Bienes Personales, a tax on personal assets. For residents, the base is made up of worldwide net assets; for non-residents, it is based on assets located in Argentina.

In 2024, as part of the Ley Bases reform package, the tax began to be significantly reduced: in each budget year, the top bracket is removed from the scale.

For 2025, rates are estimated at about 0.5%–1.1% (in 2023, the top rate was 1.5%). By 2027, only a single rate of 0.25% is expected to remain.

In addition, a voluntary early settlement scheme was introduced (REIBP). Taxpayers could pay the tax for the 2023–2027 period at a reduced rate of 0.75% of the asset base calculated for 2023.

Previously, higher rates applied to residents’ foreign assets (up to 2.25%), but the 2024 reforms largely levelled the approach between domestic and foreign assets.

Argentina is one of the clearest examples of a country that is effectively dismantling its wealth tax. The trajectory, however, depends on decisions by future governments.

France: no broad wealth tax—only a real estate wealth tax

France replaced its broad wealth tax Impôt de Solidarité sur la Fortune (ISF) in 2018 under Emmanuel Macron. The replacement is a narrower regime—Impôt sur la Fortune Immobilière (IFI)—which is charged exclusively on real estate.

IFI applies when the net taxable value of real estate exceeds €1.3 million. Rates are progressive, roughly 0.5%–1.5% on the portion above €10 million.

Certain types of debt (such as mortgages and loans linked to the property) can reduce the tax base. Assets held and used professionally are generally excluded.

The political debate around replacing ISF with IFI was prominent: opponents described it as a benefit for the wealthy because financial assets and movable property are not taxed; supporters linked the reform to the need to curb capital outflows.

According to 2023 data, IFI generated about €2.3 billion for France—around 0.2% of all tax revenues. From time to time, proposals appear to bring back a broader wealth tax, but in 2025 billionaire Bernard Arnault publicly opposed the idea of a 2% tax on assets above €100 million.

For investors, this means: financial assets (including instruments that may overlap with CBI considerations) are not subject to IFI as a “wealth tax.” However, buying real estate in France can create substantial ongoing annual costs in addition to the purchase price.

Italy: overseas-asset taxes instead of a general wealth tax

Italy does not impose a general tax on net wealth, but tax residents do face taxes on assets located abroad.

IVIE (Imposta sul Valore degli Immobili situati all’Estero) is a tax on foreign real estate at a rate of 1.06% (up from 0.76% in 2024).

IVAFE (Imposta sul Valore delle Attività Finanziarie detenute all’Estero) is a tax on foreign financial assets at 0.2%, and for jurisdictions with a “preferential” regime up to 0.4%.

Foreign bank accounts are handled separately: there is a fixed annual charge of €34.20 per account (provided the average balance is not below €5,000; below that level, no fee is charged).

The practical effect is asymmetric: when an Italian resident holds assets in Italy, no “general” wealth tax arises. But if assets are held abroad, IVIE and IVAFE apply.

Since 2024, new tax residents under the flat tax regime have significant exclusions: program participants can be exempt from IVIE and IVAFE—depending on the program’s conditions. That makes Italy’s structure a notable factor when planning a move from higher-tax countries.

Belgium: an annual charge on securities accounts

Belgium does not have a general wealth tax, but since 2021 it has imposed an annual tax on securities accounts.

The rate is 0.15% of the value of such accounts once the threshold of €1 million is exceeded. Importantly, the calculation is based on the full account value after the threshold is reached—not only on the amount above €1 million.

There is also a cap: the tax should not exceed 10% of the difference between the account value and the threshold (with caveats for certain situations where the excess is minimal). The tax can apply to both residents and certain categories of non-residents if they hold Belgian accounts.

Because the scope is narrow, it affects a limited number of people. Still, for holders of large portfolios through Belgian structures, the annual cost can be meaningful.

Netherlands: Box 3 as a “hidden” tax on capital

Formally, the Netherlands does not have a wealth tax as a standalone category. However, the Box 3 regime effectively functions as a tax on capital.

Tax authorities assume a notional return on three asset groups and apply a blended deemed result taxed at a fixed rate of 36%.

For 2025, the deemed returns are: on bank deposits—1.44%; on investments and other assets (shares, crypto, and secondary real estate)—5.88%; and on debts—2.62%.

Next, a weighted average return is calculated based on the taxpayer’s actual asset mix, and that figure is taxed at 36%. As a result, the effective burden can vary substantially depending on whether you mainly hold cash or investments.

The tax-free allowance (free allowance) for 2025 is €57,684 per taxpayer (about €115,368 for tax partners). In 2026, the allowance drops to €51,396. At the same time, the deemed return on investments for 2026 rises to 7.78%, which may increase the effective rate for portfolios with a high investment share.

The system has long been the subject of court disputes. After a decision by the Dutch Supreme Court (the Kerstarrest case), it was recognized that taxing notional returns that were not actually earned violates taxpayers’ rights. In 2024, further clarifications followed regarding the problematic nature of the transitional approach.

In response, a law called the Box 3 Actual Return Act was approved in early 2026. It is expected to take effect in 2028: the 36% rate will apply to actual returns (including unrealized gains under a rebalancing/accumulation model). The regime should therefore move closer to a capital gains tax approach.

Until the transition, the current deemed system remains. Taxpayers can argue for a lower actual return to reduce their liability.

For investors, this is especially important: the effective rate may end up higher than in jurisdictions where wealth tax is calculated directly using different base principles.

Uruguay: a territorial model—tax applies only to assets in the country

Uruguay levies a tax on net wealth (Impuesto al Patrimonio) under a territorial principle: the taxable object is assets located within the country.

Residents face a flat rate of 0.1%. Non-residents are taxed under a progressive scale with higher values.

The key difference is that a resident’s foreign assets are not included in the base if they are outside Uruguay. Therefore, if most capital is held abroad, wealth tax may not arise.

The tax-free minimum is estimated at about $120,000 for individuals and $240,000 for family groups. Overall, the resident rate is relatively low, but the tax still applies to Uruguayan real estate and securities.

Investor interest in Uruguay is growing, especially among people relocating from Argentina and Brazil. The territorial taxation logic and expanded exemptions for new residents (tax “holidays” for 11 years) make the country one of the most tax-efficient in Latin America in terms of overall tax burden.

Which countries abolished a wealth tax—and why the list shrank

The fact that the number of countries with wealth taxes is shrinking is a predictable part of the tax reform cycle. In 1990, 12 OECD countries applied a net wealth tax; today, only four remain.

At different times, such taxes were abolished in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Italy (in general form), the Netherlands (in explicit form), and Sweden. Most of the decisions were made roughly between the mid-1990s and 2007.

The reasons for abolition often overlapped: administrative complexity, capital outflows, shortfalls in revenue, and difficulties valuing illiquid assets correctly (for example, stakes in private companies or works of art).

Sweden is frequently cited: the tax was abolished in 2007, on the view that the amounts collected did not compensate for the losses from capital flight. One of the most referenced cases is the move of IKEA founder Ingvar Kamprad, who lived in Switzerland for decades.

The overall takeaway is this: regimes that apply to a broad base and moderate rates (as in Switzerland) tend to be more sustainable. By contrast, taxes with high rates on a narrow base are more likely to be repealed (for example, Sweden before 2007 or France before 2018).

Disclaimer: This material is for information only and does not constitute tax advice. Tax rules change, and final conclusions depend on specific circumstances. Before making decisions based on this information, it is recommended to consult a qualified professional. The rates and thresholds provided are current as of early 2026 and should be verified using official sources.

Planning a move and considering citizenship or residency by investment (CBI/invest residence)? Before applying, it’s crucial to look beyond the minimum capital requirements and understand how the destination country taxes wealth and assets. In some jurisdictions, “wealth taxes” can meaningfully affect the real cost of holding assets, purchasing a second home, or structuring investments. For a well-informed decision, review the tax landscape early and validate it with up-to-date practice—start with Digital Nomad.

Our Telegram channel about various types of Greek residence permits, digital nomad programs, and the Greek Golden Visa: @digitalnomadgr